----------------------------------------------------------------------------
####### ######## ######## ###########
### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and
### ### ## ### ## ### Technology:
### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for
### ######## ### ### the 21st Century
### ### ### ###
### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326
### ### ### ## ### April, 1993
####### ### ######## ### Volume 1, Number 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer
Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
Additional support provided by the Center for Academic Computing,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
This article is archived as BERGE IPCTV1N2 on LISTSERV@GUVM
(LISTSERV@GUVM.GEORGETOWN.EDU)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Founding and Managing of IPCT-L: A Listowners' Perspective
(Note 1)
Zane L. Berge, Ph.D.
Georgetown University
Mauri Collins, MA
Pennsylvania State University
While there are many reasons for starting a scholarly
discussion group, we will focus, from a listowner's perspective,
on the reasons for founding the Interpersonal Computing and
Technology List, (IPCT-L@GUVM). We will also share some of the
decisions that needed to be made before going online, how this list
was marketed, the role of the moderators and some of the benefits
obtained through the creation of the IPCT-L Editorial Policy.
First, let's see how this activity fits the overall goals of the
host institution.
In January 1992, Dr. Zane Berge was hired by Georgetown
University to direct the Center for Teaching and Technology (CTT)
at the Academic Computer Center. Simply stated, the mission of
the Center is to promote the integration of computers and other
instructional technology into the higher education classroom.
Part of that vision includes tapping the expertise available from
scholars around the United States and the world, to discuss their
common interests, to learn from one another, to share their
expertise and to pool their experience toward the solution of
common problems.
One idea that was discussed was that a scholarly, peer-
reviewed journal could be a valuable part of promoting the
mission of the CTT. Further discussion determined that an
electronic journal distribution might be the most immediate and
practical way of implementing this goal, provided some market
research was done to gain confidence that such a journal would
find a readership. It made some sense that a scholarly
discussion group (SDG) would help in finding an editorial board,
potential contributors, and subscribers.
Berge's vision for the list is reflected in its name:
"Interpersonal Computing and Technology List." The decade of the
80s brought the proliferation of the personal computer and an
emphasis on individual productivity. Computer assisted
instruction (CAI) was delivered to one person at a time sitting
at one machine. Berge saw a need and a value in students and
teachers working collaboratively, and the possibilities inherent
in computers, educational technology and networks in tying
persons together throughout the world, sharing ideas and solving
problems.
There are many reasons to start a LISTSERV discussion group.
Two important ones are to provide a forum for scholarly
discussion regarding issues of mutual concern, and to bring
intellects together regardless of time constraints or distances.
LISTSERV discussion groups have been characterized in many
different ways. They have been likened to having a newspaper
subscription or listening to talk radio, in that many people read
or listen and only a very few chose to write to the editor or to
call in. Those who choose to participate often do so frequently.
Discussion groups can appear to be like a cocktail party, with
many different conversations proceeding at the same time.
Newcomers can wander around and listen, perhaps find something
that interests them and join in, introduce a new topic if nothing
sounds interesting, or leave if bored or offended. Any of these
options can be exercised from the privacy of their own computer.
The goals and purposes of IPCT-L at its founding in February 1992
were (taken from the NEWLIST announcement):
A special effort will be made to promote an international forum
for pedagogical issues important to higher education involving
teaching with technology, and especially with connectivity and
networking.
A goal is to create a forum for the discussion of computing and
other technology that can be used to promote learning. Topics for
discussion may involve teaching and training; collaboration;
partnerships among learners, faculty or teachers, and other
interested persons in the educational community; and research
that reflect these interests.
Besides creating a forum for the topics of interest noted above,
another interest of the CTT is to publish a scholarly, refereed
international journal. To that end, the IPCT-L will develop a
subscription list and act as a resource to develop the community
necessary to review articles and recommend editorial policies as
these publishing goals move forward.
Once the decision was made to implement the list, Berge set
about the task of finding out how to set one up. Instead of consulting
the reams of online documentation provided with the LISTSERV software,
he read Diane Kovac's excellent article "How to Start and Manage a BITnet
LISTSERV Discussion Group: A Beginner's Guide," (Note 2), and he also
found someone at his site who was already running a list and he asked.
The LISTSERV software, written by Eric Thomas, runs only on IBM
mainframes. Because Berge had been told that frequent consultations
with the system's operators were often necessary while setting up and
testing (i.e., debugging) a list, he needed to find such a system close
by his site. GUVM, Georgetown's own IBM, had the right software, space
to install the list and space for archiving messages and files. Berge
was told by the Postmaster that an account could be set up, and that
he would be sent the list header.
The actual discussion list file on the mainframe consists of
a header and a list of subscribers. When a message is received
by LISTSERV, the program checks the header to determine what
should be done with the incoming message. Following is the
current header (with the list of over 950 subscribers deleted):
IPCT-L HEADER
January 4, 1993
*
* Interpersonal Computing and Technology
*
* Review= Public Subscription= Open Send= Editor
* Notify= Yes Reply-to= List,Respect Files= No
* Confidential= No Validate= Store only X-Tags= Yes
* Stats= Normal,Public
* Notebook=Yes,A,Weekly,Public
* Mail-via= Distribute
* Ack= No Formcheck= No
* Owner= IPCT@GUVAX (IPCT-L Georgetown University)
* Owner= IPCT@CAC.PSU.EDU (mauri collins)
* Editor=IPCT@GUVAX (IPCT-L Georgetown University)
* Editor=IPCT@CAC.PSU.EDU (mauri collins)
* Language= English
* Errors-To= IPCT@GUVAX
*
.
.
(subscriber's list deleted)
*
* Total number of "concealed" subscribers: 6
* Total number of users subscribed to the list: 971 (non-
"concealed" only)
* Total number of local node users on the list: 1 (non-
"concealed" only)
*
Receipt of the header invoked a set of decisions.
Subscription and cancellation were to be open, so subscribers
could come and go from the list themselves. Messages were to be
archived monthly, (but since volume is relatively high, that has
been changed to weekly archiving). "Public" means anyone can post
to the list, review the subscription list, and retrieve files from
LISTSERV.
Berge listed himself as listowner, a technical term that gave him
the permission necessary to perform certain functions, like
retrieving the list header and making changes. He also wrote
himself in as editor to receive all incoming mail except adding
and deleting subscribers that Listserv could deal with by itself.
The "REPLY TO" was set to send responses back to the list, rather
than to the original poster. This tended to make for lot of
notes going to the list, some of which were rescued and returned
by the moderator as obviously intended private correspondence.
One of the most critical decisions to be made is whether or
not to moderate the list. Moderation takes time--sometimes a lot
of time. Additionally, moderators often have to take a lot of
static from listmembers who don't like the moderator's decisions.
However, Berge saw part of the moderator's role as keeping the
discussion within the boundaries of the list's purpose, and to
keep the discussion scholarly and civil. Ideas, logic, and
statements are fair game, but personal attacks on other
subscribers or any other persons are returned to sender to be
redistributed privately (or preferably not at all).
Following the accepted procedure for setting up new lists,
Berge posted an announcement to NEWLISTS@ndsuvm1. In general,
this action is designed for input on the formation of new groups
and to help determine if the proposed group is a duplication of
another list. Subscribers to NEWLISTS often send comments
about the proposed new list to the listowner. These comments
sometimes include lists that, in the readers mind, duplicate or
are similar to the proposed list. Given that type feedback, it
is useful for the newlist listowner to explore the "conflicting"
list(s), and consider the focus of the newlist.
When this discussion period was over, (usually lasting a week
or two), Berge distributed his announcement to a number of different
lists and invited subscriptions. (For example, Collins received hers
from a librarian friend at Dartmouth College and subscribed on
February 27, 1992.)
The list started out as a high volume list (approximately
16-20 posts per day), and rapidly took on a life of its own. The
list initially consumed 12-14 hours a day of Berge's time. Much
of this time was taken up with administrative matters , (e.g.,
handling mail that had been returned because the addresses were
incorrect or because machines were down somewhere). He developed
a format style, after some initial difficulties, where the
listname appears in the From: line that shows in most people's
mail readers, and with the sender's e-mail address in the first
line of the body of the text. This makes IPCT-L messages highly
visible. More of his time was spent writing and replying to
people who did not appreciate being 'moderated' and who
complained of censorship.
Berge also spent hours agonizing over what should and should
not be posted to keep the list within the guidelines of his
original ideas about topics. It became apparent that not everyone
was interpreting the announcement as introducing a list for
the discussion of the reasons and purposes for using educational
technology. The topic area of the list was the subject of one of
the earliest discussions. Collins, and apparently many others, were
drawn to the list through their interest in Computer Mediated
Communication, and the list has always featured a strong contingent of
communications scholars, despite Berge's vision of a list mainly for
instructional designers and educational technologists.
Collins became co-owner and co-moderator of the list when
Berge had to go to Oxford for a 10 day conference. Berge and
Collins had chatted briefly and he had mentioned that he needed a
graduate student to handle things while he was away. By the time
Collins took over, the list had "settled" considerable, and she
worked on it an average of perhaps 5 hours a day. Here again,
this was mostly agonizing over what was to go the list.
At the behest of one of our subscribers, when Berge came
back from Oxford, the two moderators started discussing the
development of a written editorial policy. Their primary
motivation was to write something as guide lines for themselves
to ensure some consistency and to have a document to refer to
when their decisions were questioned. A search turned up very
few lists with formal written policies and the moderators decided
to try to write one that would serve as model for others, as well
as giving themselves a reference to help keep their moderating
consistent. The present document incorporates the best features
of the editorial policies that were found and much that was
written specifically for IPCT-L.
The editorial policy is sent to all new subscribers, is
archived on LISTSERV@GUVM.GEORGETOWN.EDU, (Note 3) and is posted
to the list occasionally as a reminder (and especially if there is a
significant change in one or more of the editorial policies).
The policy is subject to constant review, by both moderators and
list members. There are sections that have proved to be very
stable, and there are those that have been subject to several
revisions (e.g., the policies on copyright and cross-postings).
Messages sent to the IPCT-L mailbox for posting are either
posted "as is" if they meet the editorial guidelines, or returned
to the original author. When the moderators return postings they
generally cite the relevant portion of the editorial policy.
While that does not cure every problem, it does go a long way to
reassure list members that the moderators are following an
established policy and not just being capricious or arbitrary.
The number of postings per day varies greatly. It averages
about 10 per day, but that can be one or two some days, and 20 on
others. Much of this depends upon whether a topic "thread" that is
started is controversial and generates a lot of discussion; or the
time of year, (e.g., volume decreases when many universities are
on holiday); or communications links are temporarily down; and
other factors.
Some people believe that the networks are the last bastion
of unrestricted freedom of speech, and that they can say anything
they like to anyone, anywhere, anytime. That is just not so,
especially where there is a possibility for the administration at
the host site to be embroiled in lawsuits, (and for list moderators
to lose their jobs!)
Scholarly discussion groups, and particularly moderated
SDGs, have advantages/benefits for the subscribers, and
potentially a few disadvantages, too. The benefits include: 1)
nominal cost to participants, 2) the opportunity to find like-
minded individuals or groups of people (i.e., kindred spirits),
3) opportunities for (sometime never-imagined) professional
growth and development, 4) convenience of time and space
independence, 5) opportunity to participate in a group process
only on topics that the individual feels qualified to discuss
(i.e., "lurking" is permitted/encouraged), and 6) the fact that
CMC is often the "great equalizer" concerning such issues as
gender, physical impairments, and ethnicity. Some potential
disadvantages to users of moderated SDGs are: 1) the possibility
of censorship; 2) no standardized etiquette or ethics and 3)
a time lag between initiation and posting of messages.
As with participating in scholarship generally, there have been
expected and unexpected benefits deriving directly from IPCT-L for
the list owners. As an example of each, let us mention book series
that the IPCT-L moderators are editing, "Computer-Mediated Communications
and the Online Classroom," and the "Interpersonal Computing and
Technology Journal." Both had their genesis on IPCT-L--one
planned and one serendipitous.
During a list discussion of the difficulty of documenting to
university administrators the values of electronic mail and list
discussion groups, a subscriber suggested that a book be written
to document the positive uses to which computer mediated
communication was being put in the classroom. The contributor
also suggested that Berge and Collins edit the book. A call for
chapters, broadcast over a variety of LISTSERV lists, brought
over 90 submissions of abstracts, which were winnowed down to 35.
A table of contents was drawn up and a contract received from the
publisher.
The editors decided to set up a private LISTSERV group for
the book, so that they could distribute information and reminders
to the authors and so that authors could talk with each other and
with the editors. The only way to join this list is for the
listowner to add the request for subscription, (thus allowing for
ONLY authors and editors to be included). It has proved very
helpful and a very fast way of disseminating announcements and
copies of chapters that everyone needs for reference. Authors
have been able to ask questions and other authors have responded,
(and once in a while the editors have been able to post a
definitive answer!).
Lists like CMCBOOK have a very restricted membership and are
task-oriented, unlike many of the lists which are there for
general discussion revolving around a (sometimes) specific topic,
or subset of topics. Moderating a task-oriented group more
closely resembles the roles taken on by a moderator in a face-to-
face group where process toward consensus and completion is
facilitated.
One of the goals in originally founding IPCT-L was to
develop the human resources necessary to create a peer-reviewed,
electronic journal. This has been accomplished, with an
editorial board, subscribers and contributions all solicited via
the network. The first issue was published in January 1993,
(almost one year from the original notion). Each issue will be
announced by a posting to IPCT-L of a table of contents, which
will also give the instructions for retrieving the articles that
comprise the Journal. This announcement will be sent to all
subscribers, currently numbering about one thousand and fifty.
Additionally, there is a much smaller list (approximately one
hundred), mainly for libraries, that disseminates the journal
only, and does not support discussion.
SUMMARY
Scholarly discussion groups (SDG) in general can be likened
to at least four types of group gatherings: 1) a library where
one gathers information, listens, and thinks, 2) a seminar,
meeting, conference, or salon where ideas and findings are
discussed informally with colleagues and where "new" thinking
might be found, 3) a roomful of people in which dinner
conversation is appropriate, and 4) as a newspaper subscription
where "lurking" is allowed or even encouraged--where one is
allowed "the pleasure of watching minds at work. . . sitting at
the feet of others," as Carol Love stated in a post to ITED-
L@DEAKIN recently.
If a SDG is moderated, the role of the moderator can take on
any or all of the following functions:
1) a facilitator who keeps the group focused and serves as a
group leader, promoter of useful discussion, helper and
"firefighter" (squelching "flames"),
2) an administrator who helps with such things as technical
problems and archiving files, and may market the list,
3) a filter that selects appropriate posts to the list and
helps to keep the signal-to-noise level high,
4) an expert who evaluates the accuracy of contributions and
answers frequently asked questions,
5) an editor who edits text, may digest and otherwise format
the posts, or who requests the author to modify a
contribution before posting, and
6) a participant who acts just like everyone else who
subscribes.
The moderators of IPCT-L describe their major functions as
facilitators, administrators and filters--and not (in almost all
cases) as experts, editors or participants.
If you are thinking of starting a listserv list, we would
recommend you follow a similar process as described here. The
moderators of IPCT-L have written a how-to (Note 4) that focuses on
many of the issues an prospective list-owner/moderator faces and
must deal with. This is archived on LISTSERV@GUVM, along with
the most recent copy of the list's editorial policy. Retrieval
instructions appear after the notes at the end of this paper,
as does instructions on how to subscribe to IPCT-L.
Our hope is that these documents will be helpful in your
process. Even if you have no need to start a discussion group at
the present time, this may move your thinking along concerning the
benefits and some obstacles that list owners, moderators and
coordinators face daily.
----------------
Note 1: A version of this paper was first presented at the 1993 annual
meeting of the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology January 14, 1993, New Orleans LA, USA
Note 2: Kovacs, Diane, Willard McCarty, and Michael Kovacs. "How to
Start and Manage a BITNET LISTSERV Discussion Group: A Beginner's
Guide." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991):
128-143. Archived at LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 as KOVACS PRV2N1 (Internet
address Listserv@uhupvm1 uh.edu)
Note 3: The IPCT-L Editorial Policy is archived at LISTSERV@GUVM as
EDPOLICY ASC (Internet address listserv@guvm.georgetown.edu)
Note 4: Collins Mauri (1993) "So You Want To Start a LISTSERV Group".
Handout prepared for presentation at the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, January 14, 1993, New
Orleans, LA, USA. Archived at LISTSERV@GUVM as HOWTODG ASC
To retrieve any of the above:
To retrieve an archived article, send an interactive message to
LISTSERV@ saying GET . Adding F=MAIL will
bring it to you as a mail message.
From internet addresses send a message in the following form:
To: listserv@uhupvm1.uh.edu
----------------
get kovacs prv2n1
(LISTSERV is not case-sensitive)
TO SUBSCRIBE TO IPCT-L
Send an interactive message to LISTSERV@GUVM saying SUB IPCT-L YOUR NAME
or, from internet addresses send a message in the following form,
substituting your own name for yourfirstname yourlastname :
To: listserv@guvm.georgetown.edu
---------------
subscribe ipct-l yourfirstname yourlastname
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Zane Berge received his Ph.D in Instructional Systems Development
from Michigan State University and is currently Assistant Director for
Training, and Director for the Center for Teaching and Technology,
Academic Computer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
BERGE@guvax.georgetown.edu
Mauri Collins earned a BA and MA in Sociology at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, where she managed the Faculty Development Center.
She is currently a doctoral student in instructional systems at the
Pennsylvania State University.
mauri@cac.psu.edu
Berge and Collins are currently editing three books on Computer Mediated
Communications and have made several conference presentations. Their
research interests include online group communication (e.g., computer
conferencing) in higher education and the role of moderators in scholarly
discussion groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the
21st Century
Copyright 1993 Georgetown University. Copyright of individual
articles in this publication is retained by the individual
authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by
Georgetown University. It is asked that any republication of this
article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J.
Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in
APA style to: Gerald Phillips, Editor IPCT-J GMP3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU